Busan Eastdong-gu 00 - 0000 apartment buildings -

- 00 00 - Dom- Domdong-gun in the place of service.

00,000,000

Attorney Kim Yong-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Address 00 Dong-gu Busan, 00 - Do- (34/1)

00,000,000,000

Gangnam-gu General Busan District Court Decision 201

Attorney Kim Ho-ho, and Park Ho-young

Dol-gu Busan Dongdong-gu 00 Dol-gu 00,000 apartment Dol-gu

the service place: 00 - 00 -

- 00 square meters 00 square meters -

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 and 5 million won consolation money with 5% per annum from July 9, 2009 to May 31, 201, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claim for consolation money is dismissed.

4. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 and 5 million won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when this judgment became final to the day of complete payment.

5. The plaintiff shall be designated as a person with parental authority and a custodian of the principal of the case.

6. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 3.9 million with the child support of the principal of the case and KRW 400,000 per month from June 1, 2011 to September 24, 2026 to the end of each month.

7. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

8. Paragraphs 2 and 6 can be provisionally executed.

A. On June 16, 2004, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were legally married couple who completed the marriage report, and the principal of the case was placed between them.

나 . 피고는 2009 . 2 . 경부터 경북 청도군 000에 사는 임✨와 하루 수차례 휴대전 화통화와 문자메시지를 주고받았고 ( 임소는 피고에게 " 쁘렌 아쉬운 여운을 남겨야 담 기회가 기다려지잖아 푹쉬어 " " 당신의 귀빠진 날을 진심으로 축하해요 아침에 어머니 에게 안부전화 꼬옥하삼 " 라는 문자메시지를 보냈다 ) , 2009 . 4 . 2 . 경에는 밀양시에서 만 나 함께 저녁을 먹고 인근 모텔에 들어갔다 .

C. On July 2, 2009, the Plaintiff did not return home to the Defendant from the day immediately preceding the day to day, and the Plaintiff was living separately with the Defendant until now in her natives in the case principal of the case ( was in the Cheongbuk-gun, which was located in the Gyeongbuk-gun, which was located in the Gyeongbuk-do on July 1, 2009).

[Ground of recognition] Each entry in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6 through 8, 22 through 25, and 39 (including numbers), the telecom in this court, the telecom in 00, and (State) 8,00 cards (State), the family investigator's investigation report, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claim for divorce and consolation money;

A. Claim for divorce

In full view of the fact that both the plaintiff and the defendant want to proceed to divorce, the separation period has long been long, and all the plaintiff and the defendant do not make efforts to recover the relationship during the separation period, the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant shall be deemed to have reached a failure to the extent that it is difficult to recover the relationship. The "illegal act" under Article 840 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Code is a broad concept rather than the so-called "an act that is not faithful to the marital duty of the married couple" but rather than the so-called "an act that is not faithful to the marital duty of the married couple".

The defendant's act constitutes a cause of judicial divorce as provided by Articles 840 subparagraph 1 and 6 of the Civil Act, where a mobile phone and text message are sent and received several times a day, and where a restaurant is located in Tyang-si, not in his/her own residence, with his/her own house, he/she supper and entered the telecom, and such act constitutes a cause of judicial divorce as provided by Articles 840 subparagraph 1 and 6

한편 , 원고는 , 피고 부♤☆의 지나친 간섭 , 피고의 폭행 등으로 혼인이 파탄에 이 르렀다고 주장하나 갑 5 , 20 , 21호증의 각 기재만으로 이를 인정하기 부족하고 , 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다 .

B. Claim of consolation money

Furthermore, in light of the empirical rule that the marriage relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant caused the failure of the plaintiff due to the reason attributable to the defendant, and that the plaintiff suffered severe mental pain, the defendant has a duty to compensate for the plaintiff's mental suffering in money. Considering the marriage period of the plaintiff and the defendant, the circumstances leading to the failure of the marriage, and other various circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant as KRW 15 million.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from January 31, 2009 to May 31, 201, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the books of lawsuit sought by the Plaintiff, to the Plaintiff, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Claim for division of property;

(a) Additional findings

( 1 ) 원고는 혼인 후 2004 . 7 . 1 . 경 부산 ♣○여성인력개발센터에 입사하여 근무하 다가 2008 . 9 . 30 . 경 퇴사하였다 . 한편 , 피고는 2004 . 11 . 경부터 2006 . 4 . 까지 ♣○○○

( 주 ) 에서 , 2007 . 1 . 경부터 2008 . 1 . 경 ○○○○○ ( 주 ) 에서 각 근무하다가 , 2008 . 2 . 28 . 경 부산 동래구 000에 있는 ♠♠♠♠상가 내에 컴퓨터도소매점을 개업하여 운영하고 있다 .

( 2 ) 피고는 혼인하기 전인 2003 . 3 . 2 . 경 부산 부산진구 00동 _ - _ ♥♡아파트 _ - _ _ _ 을 9 , 000만 원에 매수하여 ( 임차보증금반환채무 4 , 000만 원 승계 ) 같은 달 7 . 피고 명의로 소유권이전등기를 마쳤고 , 2007 . 7 . 2 . 경 위 아파트를 임대차보증금 6 , 800만 원 으로 하여 임대하였는데 , 피고 부모가 이 사건 소송이 계속 중이던 2009 . 7 . 4 . 경 위 아파트를 1억 2 , 300만 원에 매도한 후 매도 대금을 자신들의 은행 계좌로 입금하였다 .

(3) The plaintiff and the defendant's parents prepared apartment houses in Busan, which are located in 000.

_ - _ _ 에서 신혼생활을 하다가 2007 . 7 . 2 . 경 ■ ♠아파트 임차보증금과 피고 부모의 돈 등으로 부산 동래구 00동 ㅡ 00000000아파트 _ _ _ - _ 를 임차보증금 1억 원에 임차하여 거주하였는데 , 피고 부모는 역시 이 사건 소송이 계속 중이던 2009 . 7 . 경 임 대차계약을 해지하고 피고 어머니 손♤ 명의 계좌로 송금받는 방법으로 위 임차보증 금을 반환받았다 .

( 4 ) 피고는 컴퓨터도소매점을 운영하기 위하여 부산 동래구 00동 - _ ♣♠♠ ♠♠♠♠상가 333호를 임차보증금 1 , 400만 원에 임차하였고 , 원고는 그동안 저축해 둔 돈과 피고 어머니로부터 받은 3 , 000만 원 등을 피고에게 개업자금으로 지급하였다 .

[Grounds for Recognition] Gap 9 to 16, 26 through 33, 38, 2 Eul evidence, and 2, the objection of this court

에 대한 사실조회결과 , 이 법원의 금융거래제출명령에 대한 00은행 , D ♥은행 , 00

0 Results of each reply of non-life insurance, family investigator's investigation report, purport of the whole pleadings.

(b) Property subject to division;

(1) Property under the name of the plaintiff

(A) Proactive property

10 ice insurance (00 - 0000 - 00000) At termination refund: 3,587, 151 won

(B) No small property:

(C) Net property: 3,587,151 won

(2) Property under the name of the defendant

(A) Proactive property

① 부산 부산진구 00동 _ - _ ♥♡아파트 _ - _ 매도대금 : 5 , 500만 원

= 120,000 won - Lease deposit 60,000 won = 8 million won

(2) 00000 apartment - Dois- Lease deposit: 100 million won

③ ♠♠♠♠♠♠ 상가 333호 임차보증금 : 1 , 400만 원

(B) No small property:

( 다 ) 순재산 ♩ : 169 , 000 , 000원

(3) The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s net property: 172, 587, 151 won

C. Determination of the parties' assertion

피고는 피고 명의의 ♥♡아파트 - - _ _ _ 과 00000000아파트 _ - _ 임차보증금 모두 피고 부모의 돈으로 마련한 것으로 재산분할의 대상이 되지 않는다고 주장한다 .

살피건대 , ♥♡아파트 매수자금과 ★♤♤♤♤아파트 임차보증금의 대부분을 피고 부모가 마련한 사실을 앞서 본 바와 같으나 , 이는 피고 부모가 혼인을 앞두고 있거나 혼인생활 중에 있는 피고에게 주거자금을 증여한 것이라고 봄이 상당하다 .

In addition, although one spouse's property acquired by donation, etc. during marriage is not a property with special property, it is subject to division of property in light of the following circumstances: although the other spouse actively cooperates in the maintenance of the unique property or cooperates in the increase of the property, it shall be subject to division. Therefore, it shall be subject to division of property in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff is sharing of living expenses while living in the workplace; (b) the Plaintiff is taking charge of domestic affairs and childcare; and (c) the Plaintiff was raising the Defendant's business funds with money deposited in the marriage life; and (d) it shall be considered that the said money is owned as it is.

(d) Ratio and method of division of property;

The ratio of division of property in this case is determined as 10%, Defendant 90%, and Defendant 1, taking into account all the circumstances, such as the formation and maintenance of the property indicated in the above recognition facts, the age of the Plaintiff and Defendant, property relations, revenue, marriage period, number of children, etc. The ratio of division of property in this case is determined as 10%, and Defendant 90%, respectively. The method of division of property in the division of property is ultimately reverted to the Plaintiff and Defendant according to the current ownership, and as a result, the part that falls short of the amount ultimately reverted to the Plaintiff according to the ratio of division of

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendant’s property division of KRW 1,5 million (17, 258, 715 (172, 587, 151 won x 10%) - Property owned by the Plaintiff 3, 587, 151 won = 13,671,564 won = The amount of the Plaintiff’s property division of KRW 17,258, 715 (17, 151 won x 10%) and delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the date this judgment becomes final to the day of full payment.

The person is liable to pay damages.

4. Designation of a person with parental authority or a custodian, or a claim for child support;

(a) A request for designation of a person with parental authority or custodian;

In other words, the following circumstances revealed in the records: (a) the Plaintiff was under childcare leave from the age of one to one of the instant principals, and was reinstated while leaving the instant principal to the nursery facilities in the workplace; and (b) the Defendant could not make much time to nurture the principal of the instant case due to the characteristics of his occupation; and (c) the Defendant’s parents are deemed to have to care to the principal of the instant case (the Defendant is a low computer retail store).

On the other hand, it is reasonable to designate the plaintiff as a person with parental authority and a custodian of the principal of this case by taking into account all the circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, such as the plaintiff and the defendant's living and failure of marriage, and the age and parenting of the principal of this case, and the designation of the plaintiff as a person with parental authority and custodian of the principal of this case is appropriate for the smooth growth and welfare of the principal of this case, considering the fact that the plaintiff worked as a professional counselor at the Daegu Regional Labor Office as a vocational counselor, and the plaintiff raises the principal of this case from July 2009 to his friendship.

(b) Claim for child support;

As long as the plaintiff is designated as a person with parental authority and a supporter of the principal of this case, the defendant is obligated to share the child support of the principal of this case with the father of the principal of this case. When comprehensively considering the overall circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, such as the age, source, age, property status, and import level of the principal of this case, it is reasonable to determine 40,000 won per month. According to the records, the plaintiff was not paid the child support from the defendant on July 1, 2009 to the Gyeongbuk-gu, who is a child of this case and has a friendship with the principal of this case, and the court rendered ex officio on August 24, 2010 "the defendant paid 300,000 won to the plaintiff as the child support of the principal of this case from August 1, 201 to 300,000 won until the last day of 300,000 won per month 9.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for divorce of this case is justified, and the claim for consolation money is accepted within the extent of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is decided as per Disposition with regard to the claim for division of property, the claim for designation of a person with parental authority and a custodian, and the claim for child support as above.